Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

As of this writing, (9 AM EST Monday) the 1st Debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden is still on.

This is undoubtedly a surprise to many who thought the Democrats would not risk such a thing but they may have decided it is too big a risk NOT to have said debate.

Anyways how Biden does will in my opinion determine if there are any more debates or even if he stays on the ticket, but one thing is certain. If he is still breathing and can remember his own name it will be proclaimed an unadulterated triumph.

I really thought Ginsberg’s death and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett would “Trump” any new “October Surprise” that the left was playing but the NYT decided to go all in on illegally leaked tax forms.

I suspect that the media will make much of it and Biden will try to play it up in the debate but as the leaked data not only shows no illegality, nor links to the Russians but verifies what POTUS has said for years that he’s been under audit I suspect he will be able to swat that away pretty well, and even counter that if a President’s taxes can be illegally leaked by the Deep state Democrats with an agenda then how safe is your “confidential” data if they are in power with an AG that will ignore this stuff. This tweet and reply says it all

Speaking of Barrett it will be interesting to see how Joe “I’m a good catholic really I am” Biden answer questions concerning the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. I’m sure President Trump will challenge him on some of the anti-catholic stuff but I’m thinking Biden will come back with healthcare Healthcare HEALTHCARE which actually means obamacare Obamacare OBAMACARE

I don’t think that’s a winning issue for the left but it’s their safest move.

The real danger for the Biden campaign if the James O’Keefe Stuff that dropped Sunday Night documenting voter fraud in Minnesota and more importantly unlike the “big stories” that the media has pushed, contains actual video and on the record sources.

It goes without saying that the moderator will avoid this like the plague, although attempts to bring up “will you commit to concede if defeated” questions will give President Trump a huge opening to run with this story.

This is exactly the type of thing that will get an already motivated Trump base excited and will, if viewed by people who watch the debate will cause them to distrust Democrats.

Finally who will win? Well Powerline says this:

Going back at least as far as Ronald Reagan, incumbent presidents have not done well in first debates. Bill Clinton is the only exception.

I think the problem for incumbents is overconfidence. After four years in office, presidents think they know enough and have enough experience handling questions to get through a debate in good shape. I suspect this overconfidence leads to insufficient preparation.

In addition, incumbents tend not to be used to having their statements challenged. As a result of these factors, incumbents typically struggle under the onslaught of challengers, who typically are desperate.

I think this will not be a problem. Trump has dealt with the onslaught of a hostile press every day in office, additionally You have to remember who Trump is speaking to. His escalator speech was universally panned by the experts but was designed to be understood and applauded by normal people. Expect more of that.

But I’ll repeat my line from the 1st paragraph, If he is still breathing and can remember his own name it will be proclaimed an unadulterated triumph for him by the media.

Side thought. If Drudge puts up a “who won the debate” poll it will be the 1st time in months that conservatives bother to visit his site.

I have talked a lot online and on the air about Socialism and Marxism and the destruction they unleash where ever they are applied but the problem is always how to explain it to young people taken in by this.

The goal of Marxists and Socialists is not a country filled with prosperous and well fed people, but a country where the people are governed by prosperous and well fed Marxists and Socialists.

Look at every country that is rules by Marxists, Socialists and Communists and this is true. In fact just look at cities run by the left where where Nancy Pelosi can get her hair done in SF but you couldn’t or NYC where the elite of the Music World can have an award show but you can’t go to a bar or even Atlanta where they can have a large funeral for John Lewis but you can only have ten to bury your father or mother.

Under Marxist / Socialists the elites are always prosperous and well fed always doing well and those outside of it are equally miserable.

President Trump reportedly is set to appoint Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday. Barrett is eminently qualified but will be “controversial” nonetheless, as the Democratic senators scour her seemingly exemplary life in a desperate attempt to justify their inevitable opposition. Whatever they come up with, it’s little more than a cover for the fact that the Democrats prefer judges who adhere to “living Constitutionalism” instead of Barrett’s originalism.

“Living Constitutionalism” refers to a judicial method of weighing a case where the strictures of the U.S. Constitution are, well, more malleable than perhaps what an originalist would find. So it allows a Justice to find a right to same-sex marriage embedded in a document that was written by men who would have thought the idea absurd at best. And it allows a Justice to discover a “right to privacy” in the penumbras and emanations of other rights actually mentioned in the founding law of the land.

What living Cons often don’t seem to consider, however, is that, after turning the law into clay instead of stone – the better to spin it into whatever form one likes – the potter might change before the clay is finally baked. When it’s 5 or 6 conservative judges on the Court, Democrats should be thankful these judges adhere to a stonier Constitution. Tougher to chip off marble and granite than spin mud.

When living Cons disagree on a question of a law’s constitutionality, doesn’t the difference inevitably become a question of preferred outcomes? If you can find rights wherever you like, isn’t it then the case that where you don’t find rights, it drills down to the fact that you simply preferr the other outcome?

For example, the late Ruth Ginsberg frequently found in favor of copyright holders, including studio behemoths Disney, Time Warner, and Universal, in disputes with start-ups or independent publishers, such as in the landmark copyright case Eldred v. Ashcroft, for example.

In Eldred, Justices Breyer and Stevens, both living Cons who frequently vote[d] with Ginsberg on major cases, dissented from Ginsberg majority opinion. They found constitutional violations in an extension of the copyright term.

Whether Breyer and Stevens were correct or not is not the point here. Instead, that Ginsberg failed to see a constitutional violation suggests she didn’t because she preferred an outcome in favor of the corporate behemoths who lobbied for a longer copyright term (the better to protect the cash flo- er, the integrity of their creations).

Ginsberg, corporate stooge?

How else am I to interpret it, when she so frequently ruled in their favor? If the Constitution is alive, why didn’t she kill such oligarchism?

Fortunately, Barrett – or whomever Trump selects – will issue rulings with a stronger foundation: using the actual meaning of the law, not what she – or he – wishes the law meant.